Author
Topic: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1] (Read 51704 times)

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras. ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

I see several reasons: * Programming a firmware which uses two or more CPUs needs a lot of development to parallelize "jobs" on different CPUs * PC board layout and thermal management has to be codeveloped/improved * If there is a need for a 2nd CPU the hardware is more powerful (120point AF system, 40 MPix sensor) and this will increase the system cost.

A specialized camera will see a lower count of bodies produced so the development cost will be higher on a per-body-perspective.

My 2ct.

You do realize the current 7D Mark I already uses dual DIGIC 4 chips, right? It never cost $2000, let alone $3000. Making use of dual processors in a 7D II would be a no brainer, and would NOT require the creation of DIGIC 6. The 1D X already uses dual DIGIC 5+ chips, and repurposing that design in a cheaper body would be a hell of a lot cheaper for Canon than designing something completely new from scratch. It also proves that the firmware ALREADY supports parallel processing, so there really isn't any extra work there, either.

You are essentially right. There exist four (?) models which use 2 CPUs and the EOS 1D X which uses 3 DIGICs - some basic development will be there. But never underestimate adaption of existing code for new CPUs with new (totally new?) additional components. And it depends on how you use the CPUs: Sharing load for different tasks is easy, but parallelizing one task is hard to do (except it is sth. like calculating noise reduction for different regions of the sensor).

My third point was perhaps the most important: If there is a need for a 2nd high power CPU the hardware will drive cost - extraordinary fps, a very advanced AF chip, etc. So the additional CPU will only add 100 or 200 EUR/USD but the things that made it necessary are really expensive (high speed mirror mechanism, shutter system, complex and specialized AF chip, ultra fast FADCs, etc,).

Mb66energy, excellent post! With that many autofocus points, it does sound like a lot of processing going on. This is the first I've ever seen speculation about so many points. However, that also seems like a bit of a stretch.

So...Canon is going to provide some sort of pioneering phase or hybrid autofocus system having twice as many points as the 1DX/5D3, within the fov of a 1.6x sensor having at least 21 MP resolution, with at least dual digic 5+, if not dual digic 6...(and likely require even more CPU's than this)...fire at 10 fps...all for a price that is closer to $2k than $3k...and the target market will purchase it in droves? All of this together seems unlikely, but maybe part of it will turn out to be true.

CarlTN, stop scaring me with $3K price lets not even go there ... I want 7D II for around $1600 ... but if the 7D II is released in an APS-H sensor then I will gladly pay up $3K.

I really don't foresee a $3000+ 7D II. Logically, it just wouldn't fit within Canon's lineup. If Canon really is trying to restructure their DSLR offerings, returning the xxxD line to the entry-level realm in the sub-$1000 market, restoring the xxD line to semi-professional grade status in the $1500 market, and placing the 6D at the entry-level/prosumer FF market around $2000, then it seems logical that the 7D II would fill in the gap between the 6D and the 5D.

I see it getting a reasonable feature update...a sensor in the 20-25mp range, 61pt AF (assuming that AF sensor will work for an APS-C crop frame...we might see something like a 41pt AF unit instead, which would still be fantastic!), a higher frame rate (10fps, keeping it in line with the 7D/1D IV ratio relative to the 1D X), better ISO thanks to some of the improvements that found their way into the 1D X, 5D III, and 6D (more translucent CFA and higher SNR) supporting ISO 25600 (and clean ISO 1600 output), and maybe a process shrink to 180nm (to demonstrate Canon is and will be a competitive force in the DSLR world going forward).

I see the 7D II filling the gap at around $2500-$2700, smack dab in the middle between the 6D and 5D III official prices, with a reasonable featureset and capability upgrade to justify an $800-$1000 increase in price, justify Canon's statements about making the 7D II upgrade more "revolutionary" than "evolutionary", and also validate the xxD line's existence.

The technology is here. And the fact is, that that is the only thing we now.

See the sensor in 5D m3 with high ISO performance and good IQ, the 6D with WiFi and GPS, the 7D with fair weather sealing and high fps and several Canon cameras with video technology and the AF tech ass well and so on.

From a Canon board and share holder point of view the most important thing is to get as much money out us as possible. Period!

This means that we will get the new tech in small steps so we will buy a lot of cameras. ONLY the competition will give us a camera with all known tech in ONE camera.

So pleeeeease Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and all you other great camera manufactors make dam good cameras in a dam hurry!

21 24 is that a lottery pick? I would be happy with a good AF like the 19 all x type rumored. But I would want some kind of zone selection similar to the 61 AF pt system in the 5D3. As far as the 6D I'm not in love with FF anymore than pretending a M9 is truly manual when it gives hints and tips and bells ring to tell u which way to move the switches. Results is what matters not the ad. Some 6D shots I saw on this site were very capable and generally equal to the color rendition of the big boy 5D3, but as for the claimed low light? These pics were taken in a bar and the photographer must have had a few because only a bit here and there was even resolved enough to see what was going on. I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

21 24 is that a lottery pick? I would be happy with a good AF like the 19 all x type rumored. But I would want some kind of zone selection similar to the 61 AF pt system in the 5D3. As far as the 6D I'm not in love with FF anymore than pretending a M9 is truly manual when it gives hints and tips and bells ring to tell u which way to move the switches. Results is what matters not the ad. Some 6D shots I saw on this site were very capable and generally equal to the color rendition of the big boy 5D3, but as for the claimed low light? These pics were taken in a bar and the photographer must have had a few because only a bit here and there was even resolved enough to see what was going on. I suspect the 7D2 will be priced closer to the 6D than the what is that thing Nikon makes the D7200? It's crazy that Nikon offers that for so much less. Strictly marketing. Canon reminds me of Sony back in the 80's and 90's. Priced too high so status seekers would buy it. If it costs too much it must be better.

Price is a matter of demand, not consumer desire for status. Canon has extremely high demand for their cameras, regardless of their technological status. The percentage of camera owners who care about the minutia of a manufacturers technology is extremely small relative to the total camera buying populace. High demand drives higher prices more than any other factor, with perhaps base commodity (materials) prices and import/export tariffs being close seconds.

A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.

People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!

I thought everyone decided "aps-h" was uncool? (I still like it...and again, I would prefer 1.1x or 1.2x...)

At any rate, there is no way a "7D" variant would receive that large of a sensor...because it would be called a 1D variant. Canon is apparently forever tied to 1.6x crop, and anything larger than 1.5x crop, would not work with the smaller (and usually cheap) lenses designed to be used with "aps-c"...

Which again...outlines a bit of a conundrum. "APS-C" was always meant to be an entry level format, was it not? Because a decade ago, it was cheaper to build smaller sensors (and couple them to smaller bodies and smaller mirror boxes). Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? Because "aps-c"-specific lenses are superior to full frame lenses? Get friggin real, never going to happen, the physics are against it. Because they just will? Ok. Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it. Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

A 21mp / 24mp sensor on the 7DII? Cool, so the users will have even more need of buying the best lenses in the Canon lineup to exploit the resolution. Two birds with one stone for Canon.

People not upgrading their lenses will ... well, whine again because the increased resolution is nothing if you pair it with cheap lenses!

I thought everyone decided "aps-h" was uncool? (I still like it...and again, I would prefer 1.1x or 1.2x...)

At any rate, there is no way a "7D" variant would receive that large of a sensor...because it would be called a 1D variant. Canon is apparently forever tied to 1.6x crop, and anything larger than 1.5x crop, would not work with the smaller (and usually cheap) lenses designed to be used with "aps-c"...

Which again...outlines a bit of a conundrum. "APS-C" was always meant to be an entry level format, was it not? Because a decade ago, it was cheaper to build smaller sensors (and couple them to smaller bodies and smaller mirror boxes). Now it is not so much cheaper, if any...to build the crop sensors, compared to full frame. So...again...why are people going to pay $2700 for a body that is hobbled by such a small sensor size? Because "aps-c"-specific lenses are superior to full frame lenses? Get friggin real, never going to happen, the physics are against it. Because they just will? Ok. Maybe they will buy because of the "cool factor", and because it's the Canon name and reputation behind it. Or maybe they won't buy as many as Canon would like. Time will tell.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter. Leica and Zeiss lenses are examples of how lenses small in physical size can offer superior quality, for a mount that is neither EF or EF-S. The mount has nothing to do with the quality of a lens. If Canon wanted to, they could produce EF-S lenses that were just as high quality as comparable EF lenses. In some cases, they have, or very nearly so. The optics of the 10-22 and 17-85 are both very high quality. I think Canon's goal with EF-S is to keep them consumer glass, that's all.

As for APS-C, its just a format. It WAS cheaper in the past to manufacture them. As a matter of fact, it is STILL cheaper to manufacture them. Sensor cost is all about die area per sensor. No matter how you slice and dice it, FF sensors will always cost more than APS-C sensors. Waver costs have come down as 300mm crystal manufacture has improved, but that savings in cost distributes, so smaller sensors will always be cheaper than larger sensors, but a similar factor.

APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality. APS-C also has its benefits. For anyone who photographs at range, the crop factor as well as the generally higher pixel density offers a reach advantage. Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value. For other fields of photography, getting the largest sensor you can get your hands on is the best thing to do...things like landscapes, astrophotography, portraiture and weddings, all benefit from a larger frame. There are pros and cons to both. APS-C is not intrinsically inferior technology just because the sensor is smaller.

Camera cost is also not entirely about the sensor. The advent of the 6D and D600 prove that. Even though those cameras both use a full frame sensor, they are relatively cheap. The camera as a whole is what drives its value, and that value ultimately has little to do with the materials cost (even if materials are the most significant cost), and more to do with the needs of the photographer. A 7D II with 61pt AF, 10fps, a deep frame buffer, clean high ISO (and ISO to 25600), and improved IQ overall (which would be especially likely if Canon does finally move to a 180nm process), are VALUABLE in and of themselves. That "package deal" is something photographers like myself could very much use...all that power, speed, and IQ with a cropped sensor? I WANT that reach, and I'll happily pay for it.

That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

LOL, I don't know if I'd go that far! If the 7DII performs as well as the 5DIII on a per sensor area basis, then you might see the restoration of the 5D/7D combination. Although with the 5DIII's improved AF and frame rate, there might be fewer people using 5DIII/7DII combos -- the 5DIII might be good enough.

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

LOL, I don't know if I'd go that far! If the 7DII performs as well as the 5DIII on a per sensor area basis, then you might see the restoration of the 5D/7D combination. Although with the 5DIII's improved AF and frame rate, there might be fewer people using 5DIII/7DII combos -- the 5DIII might be good enough.

I guess I should have qualified my statement further by adding "when shooting with the big whites"

One thing is for sure. 5D3 owners will be up in arms over anyone who posts that their new 7D2 is the superior camera...When it comes to Canon fanboys, you just don't mess with the 5D3.

Agreed. I feel though that the 7DII will come very close OR may even better the 5D3 under good lighting conditions. High ISO will however, be a different story.

You sure like to quote me! I got the information from here, and other sources. Are you denying the cost of producing full frame sensors, has come down relative to the cost of making a crop sensor...from the early 2000's?

I never said crop cameras didn't have their uses. Stop putting words in my mouth. But a hobbyist is FAR less likely to pay $2700 for a camera body (especially for a crop camera body). And if the 7D2 costs less, and does not have "revolutionary" features such as some kind of large "pro" body (that uses the larger triple cell battery similar to, or the same as, the 1DX and previous 1D bodies), and advanced auto focus...then what are we really talking about? I'm talking about the rumored 7D2, and you seem to be talking about the 70D. Given what you "think" the 7D2 will be, I don't see room for a 70D...unless of course it's really just a glorified Rebel...but they already have glorified Rebels...so again, I don't see your logic.